Scourge makes Reaper redundant

[Amerikajinn.4635]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> > @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> >

> > > I always see all these arguments for balance ... in a game that is designed around META builds. That makes no sense. You get A build, maybe TWO if you are lucky. Sometimes you get none. That's how the game works. The value in trying to make it something it isn't is zero ... we KNOW what to expect from this game;

> >

> > >it's 5 years in and consistent with the way classes interact with each other and the game. Anyone concerned about 'balance' between builds in a class is delusional.

> >

> > 5 years in and has consistently failed miserably with audiences. Failed with esports. Failed with streamers. Though, what you're saying, is if you openly asked ANET to respond to a post asking if their entire structure of pvp is based completely on pre-determiend meta builds (by them) and not by balance; they would agree?

>

> I don't get what you are asking me. It's clear that Anet is not going to pull a 180 and start giving us a many balanced builds for whatever game mode they can and that's not just because 'they suck'. It's pre-determined by how the game mechanics work ... meta builds are the result of those mechanics. You can't 'balance' away this design philosophy. I have no doubt that it would be _technically _easy for Anet to make some number changes and make reaper the preferred build over Scourge. That's not even the relevant question. With some work they might even be able to make the performances similar enough to make people happy. They question is why they would bother when the whole game design would ruin that effort every time the game changed or the meta shifted? It's a waste of time for Anet to chase these changes.

 

(Note: my response is largely looking at the PvE aspect of Necromancer)

 

I think what really bothers a lot of Necromancer players is that when Necro has tools to fit a fight they go from being below average to average in terms of utility (excluding MO in raids, which is one example of where Necro shines in particular). This kind of comes back to the class at large being a Jack of all trades: it can CC, do alright damage, do alright cleave if you're playing condi, self sustain, etc; but when your best tools both don't elevate you above average when the situation fits it as well as not being as universally applicable to the game as other classes (9 times out of 10 powerful single target damage is more applicable to the game than powerful cleave), which put out similar damage but also have some form of support, be it stance sharing, boon distribution, venom sharing or even blasting of combo fields.

 

It's that support that other classes apply that allow them to be more universally apllicable in a PvE setting than Necro in general, and the common perception is that this is due to the inherant limiters of Necro that we don't get to choose.

 

"Can't buff Necro or Reaper or they'd be too tanky"

 

"Can't buff Scourge because too much heavy support"

 

At the end of the day I would imagine players want balance that allows them to choose, so instead of the entire profession being limited to being viewed as mediocre by the player base at large they get to choose if they have this inbuilt tankyness or heavy support so those factors aren't an issue in PvE. As such I don't think attempting to balance this is a waste of time when this has been such a contentious issue among the player base for quite some time. In essence, if Necromancer is balanced to become more universally applicable to situations: strong for cleave with skills like Epidemic, and passable for single target dps due to cleave being the strong point, and with some form of team support that in turn is both more universally applicable then faster team revival/the current lifesteal aura, as well as not being limited to just the one specialization.

[Obtena.7952]

Players want balance for lots of reasons, but giving them balance between the various builds within the class doesn't address mediocrity or necessisarily fix what's wrong with the class to begin with. Balancing multiple builds within a class is certainly a waste of time becaues Anet can't maintain those balances because of game mechanics being changed or meta shifting in PVP/WVW. It's not like there is some target called balance, and Anet just need to hit a bullseye. That target moves ALL the time. Even if they hit it, it moves and they have to aim and shoot for it again. It's a fool's errand.

[Dadnir.5038]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> Players want balance for lots of reasons, but giving them balance between the various builds within the class doesn't address mediocrity or necessisarily fix what's wrong with the class to begin with. Balancing multiple builds within a class is certainly a waste of time becaues Anet can't maintain those balances because of game mechanics being changed or meta shifting in PVP/WVW. It's not like there is some target called balance, and Anet just need to hit a bullseye. That target moves ALL the time. Even if they hit it, it moves and they have to aim and shoot for it again. It's a fool's errand.

 

Well... I can only second that, the issue lie in the mechnisms of the necromancer not in the "balance" of numbers. Even a pro chief can't make an healthy meal if he only have rotten ingredients.

[dceptaconroy.7928]

Its all fun n games. Anet know whats up. Choppy waters are alot more interesting than a placid lake. We get a little here then a little there, all while in this eternal chase, but it keeps everyone fizzing and interested. We'd all love alot of what has been suggested by our fellow necro braintrust, but theres no point in waiting so now try to put yourself into their shoes and imagine reading these comments and having a giggle thence concocting patches to incite the next rage/meta/geargrind/time sink. All while mwahahaing. To suggest they cant manage just the right amount of adjustment seems ridiculous right...right?

[ilmau.9781]

> @dceptaconroy.7928 said:

> Its all fun n games. Anet know whats up. Choppy waters are alot more interesting than a placid lake. We get a little here then a little there, all while in this eternal chase, but it keeps everyone fizzing and interested. We'd all love alot of what has been suggested by our fellow necro braintrust, but theres no point in waiting so now try to put yourself into their shoes and imagine reading these comments and having a giggle thence concocting patches to incite the next rage/meta/geargrind/time sink. All while mwahahaing. To suggest they cant manage just the right amount of adjustment seems ridiculous right...right?

 

as i said this is not hard to understand, beafore there were no complains and Reaper was working, now it is not and forum is full of complains, so just do rollback for the moment and then try again, maybe giving paying customers a bit more attention. Since for me it is really easy, i am one of those who is here from 5 yeras buying gems every month and i am doing that happily beacouse i was having fun, but since i have no fun at the moment since i got my main class totally destroyed i am not spending a single €€ as long as i don t get this fixed. Keep going this way and there is also an high chance that i move to another game. And i am a commited guy i had 5.000 hours of Gw1 and i am at 6.000 hours of Gw2, so when i change i am not coming back.

[Crinn.7864]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> Balancing multiple builds within a class is certainly a waste of time becaues Anet can't maintain those balances because of game mechanics being changed or meta shifting in PVP/WVW.

 

Except ArenaNet has said in a [recent interview](https://www.mmorpg.com/guild-wars-2/interviews/arenanet-discusses-the-balance-in-tyria-1000012242) that one of their prime goals is to promote less that stellar builds up to par, and to create builds diversity whenever possible. If ArenaNet balances the way they claim to balance, then the current situation between Reaper and Scourge is not desirable to Anet at all.

 

Full quote from the interview:

> Karl McLain: The team does indeed keep an eye on popular builds found on websites like Metabattle and takes them into account when making balance updates. When approaching balance updates, we try to not improve already strong builds as much, but instead make efforts to improve lesser-used aspects of the combat system. Sometimes strong traits or skills are increased, but these improvements are generally made to help support less popular builds and it ends up being more of a coincidence. We’re constantly on the lookout for builds that are just out of reach or are waiting to be discovered!

 

[Obtena.7952]

Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

 

Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

 

I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

[ilmau.9781]

Personally, i do not give a fuck about Scourge, i want Reaper to be a viable class beacouse that is what i have fun to play.

 

Scourge is just insanely stronger that Reaper under any aspect you can see it used in Raids, WvW, PvP, while Reaper is NOT EXISTANT in any game mode but casual open world pve.

[Justine.6351]

> @Crinn.7864 said:

> Scourge fills the exact same role that reaper does, except scourge does it better, and this is true for every game mode.

>

> What was Reaper used for in sPvP?

> boonhate, debuffing, and cleave pressure in teamfights. Generally paired with a support.

> What is Scourge used for in sPvP?

> boonhate, debuffing, and cleave pressure in teamfights. Generally paired with a support.

>

> What was Reaper used for in WvW?

> AoE boonrip in zergs, and condi cleave.

> What is Scourge used for in WvW?

> AoE boonrip in zergs, and condi cleave.

>

> What was Reaper used for in PvE?

> selfish no-utility DPS.

> What is Scourge used for in PvE?

> selfish no-utility DPS.

>

> Scourge is a 100% upgrade to reaper in every gamemode. Scourge offers more DPS, more utility, more boonhate, and more boon generation that Reaper does. And with reaper's degen being bumped up to 5%, you can't really even say that Reaper has better survivability either.

>

 

What's interesting is that you apparently have had a change of heart regarding scourge from the thread I created a month ago regarding potential nerfs incoming for it. And it has been nerfed since that thread was made lol.

[TheDevice.2751]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

>

> Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

>

> I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

 

You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

[ilmau.9781]

> @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> >

> > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> >

> > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

>

> You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

 

just leave him, he is ranting nonsenses for days already, ignore him and he will stop

[Obtena.7952]

> @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> >

> > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> >

> > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

>

> You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

 

It doesn't suit my argument, it's how Anet works; again, I ask you:

 

_If Anet is inline with the idea of balance, why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes?_ We have had 5 years ... we don't have these things. So either Anet doesn't care or can't balance (which Karl refutes in that post) or their ideas of balance must have some additional considerations other than performance. What other options are there?

 

You can continue ignore the fact they care greatly about maintaining the concept for the classes, but that will simply continue frustrate you.

[Crinn.7864]

>@Obtena.7952 said:

> > @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> > >

> > > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> > >

> > > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

> >

> > You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

>

> It doesn't suit my argument, it's how Anet works; again, I ask you:

>

> _If Anet is inline with the idea of balance, why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes?_ We have had 5 years ... we don't have these things. So either Anet doesn't care or can't balance (which Karl refutes in that post) or their ideas of balance must have some additional considerations other than performance. What other options are there?

>

> You can continue ignore the fact they care greatly about maintaining the concept for the classes, but that will simply continue frustrate you.

 

If areanet is not balancing on performance equivalence, then they better start balancing on performance equivalence, given that performance equivalence is one of the primary concerns of a large portion of their playerbase. Oh and the two PvP gamemodes _require_ performance equivalence in order to give a good experience to the participants.

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @Crinn.7864 said:

> >@Obtena.7952 said:

> > > @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> > > >

> > > > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> > > >

> > > > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

> > >

> > > You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

> >

> > It doesn't suit my argument, it's how Anet works; again, I ask you:

> >

> > _If Anet is inline with the idea of balance, why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes?_ We have had 5 years ... we don't have these things. So either Anet doesn't care or can't balance (which Karl refutes in that post) or their ideas of balance must have some additional considerations other than performance. What other options are there?

> >

> > You can continue ignore the fact they care greatly about maintaining the concept for the classes, but that will simply continue frustrate you.

>

> If areanet is not balancing on performance equivalence, then they better start balancing on performance equivalence, given that performance equivalence is one of the primary concerns of a large portion of their playerbase. Oh and the two PvP gamemodes _require_ performance equivalence in order to give a good experience to the participants.

>

 

Seems to me they do well enough doing it their way ... if people haven't been getting a good experience, this game wouldn't exist at this point. Truly, there is more to owing the existence of an MMO than class balance; the fact is that it's nice to have, it's not a must have. I've played more balanced MMO's that were much shorter lived.

 

Certainly, it's more of a concern in PVP, but we can't ignore the importance of strategy and tactics in those situations as well. In otherwords, playing smart has quite a bit of sway in situations where people are using underperforming classes and playing against real people. Is that fair? Probably not, but it's real.

[ArmageddonAsh.6430]

> @KrHome.1920 said:

> > @Crinn.7864 said:

> >not to mention Reaper loses all 1v1 matchups against all common offnode classes. (Mirage, Druid, Rifle Holosmith)

> I laughed hard when you said rifle holosmith. Even in WvW (where the holo deals a ton more damage) I lose against a rifle holo maybe.... let me guess... once a month or so.

>

> Mirage (condi): depends on my setup (running my standard build I might lose)

> Mirage (power): usually no big deal

> Druid: depends on LOS (easy on node, since he can't kite)

>

> And I am still waiting for the scourge that hardcounters me in pvp (no trailblazer). Did not find him yet.

 

If you're playing Reaper. Sorry to break it to you. You played VERY bad players. By bad. I mean VERY Bad. Reaper is of little threat to anyone that is even SEMI decent at being ranged. I know i havent lost to a Reaper in a long time. Why? Because i know how to lock them down. I know how to counter them. Plus 4-5k Auto atatck hits from 1,500 range tends to help just a little bit. Excluding my mobility, my stealth, my CC.

 

of course this is coming from the WvW point as you mention WvW, i dont really care for S/TPvP as it was a failure the moment Anet though they oculd actually make an eSport out of it ruining the balance for the other 2 modes. In WvW being a Hybrid Scourge, i havent lost to a Reaper yet. This as pointed out above could just be because they are woeful. It also helps that not many people really expect my build or weapon choices.

 

 

[ilmau.9781]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> > @Crinn.7864 said:

> > >@Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > > > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

> > > >

> > > > You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

> > >

> > > It doesn't suit my argument, it's how Anet works; again, I ask you:

> > >

> > > _If Anet is inline with the idea of balance, why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes?_ We have had 5 years ... we don't have these things. So either Anet doesn't care or can't balance (which Karl refutes in that post) or their ideas of balance must have some additional considerations other than performance. What other options are there?

> > >

> > > You can continue ignore the fact they care greatly about maintaining the concept for the classes, but that will simply continue frustrate you.

> >

> > If areanet is not balancing on performance equivalence, then they better start balancing on performance equivalence, given that performance equivalence is one of the primary concerns of a large portion of their playerbase. Oh and the two PvP gamemodes _require_ performance equivalence in order to give a good experience to the participants.

> >

>

> Seems to me they do well enough doing it their way ... if people haven't been getting a good experience, this game wouldn't exist at this point. Truly, there is more to owing the existence of an MMO than class balance; the fact is that it's nice to have, it's not a must have. I've played more balanced MMO's that were much shorter lived.

>

> Certainly, it's more of a concern in PVP, but we can't ignore the importance of strategy and tactics in those situations as well. In otherwords, playing smart has quite a bit of sway in situations where people are using underperforming classes and playing against real people. Is that fair? Probably not, but it's real.

 

this game is still alive for the only reason there are not good option to it.

[dceptaconroy.7928]

'underperforming classes playing against real people' is not fair and its real- double tick, thats why we excel at open world pve. Reaper with the best tactics and strategies is sub par vs skill comparable opponents no question, in any pvp environment its basic knowledge, try your hand at it and see. If youre invested enough to want to win, reaper is not an option.

[Scarran.9845]

> @ilmau.9781 said:

> this game is still alive for the only reason there are not good option to it.

 

To be honest the games earnings haven't been that great when you compare it to other games in the NCSoft stable. Before the latest xpac it was consistently earning less and less each quarter and was as low as 13 billion won before PoF released. It does sound alot but when you compare that B&S earned - 38 billion won, Lineage - 35 billion won, Lineage 2 - 15 billion won and Aion was just lower than GW2 at 10 billion won, it puts it into perspective.

 

Then when you compare this quarter with the xpac release earned 20 billion won in comparison to when HoT released at the same quarter where the game earned 37 billion won. They are losing alot in earnings and I imagine its going to drop down again and get alot worse, especially as people are getting sick and tired of the ineptitude of this balance team, you just need to take a look around at the various other sections of the forum to see how much unrest their is.

 

The game may still be alive but if it keeps hemorrhaging money like it has been doing then the game is going to be in trouble.

[Obtena.7952]

> @ilmau.9781 said:

> > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > @Crinn.7864 said:

> > > >@Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > > > > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

> > > >

> > > > It doesn't suit my argument, it's how Anet works; again, I ask you:

> > > >

> > > > _If Anet is inline with the idea of balance, why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes?_ We have had 5 years ... we don't have these things. So either Anet doesn't care or can't balance (which Karl refutes in that post) or their ideas of balance must have some additional considerations other than performance. What other options are there?

> > > >

> > > > You can continue ignore the fact they care greatly about maintaining the concept for the classes, but that will simply continue frustrate you.

> > >

> > > If areanet is not balancing on performance equivalence, then they better start balancing on performance equivalence, given that performance equivalence is one of the primary concerns of a large portion of their playerbase. Oh and the two PvP gamemodes _require_ performance equivalence in order to give a good experience to the participants.

> > >

> >

> > Seems to me they do well enough doing it their way ... if people haven't been getting a good experience, this game wouldn't exist at this point. Truly, there is more to owing the existence of an MMO than class balance; the fact is that it's nice to have, it's not a must have. I've played more balanced MMO's that were much shorter lived.

> >

> > Certainly, it's more of a concern in PVP, but we can't ignore the importance of strategy and tactics in those situations as well. In otherwords, playing smart has quite a bit of sway in situations where people are using underperforming classes and playing against real people. Is that fair? Probably not, but it's real.

>

> this game is still alive for the only reason there are not good option to it.

 

Is that a serious comment? There are no other good options for fantasy MMO's other than GW2? As normal, this ranks right up there as some of the most sensational comments you could have come up with. I'm going to put no effort into proving why that statement is demonstrably false.

[ilmau.9781]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> > @ilmau.9781 said:

> > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > @Crinn.7864 said:

> > > > >@Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > > @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > > > > > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > > > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

> > > > >

> > > > > It doesn't suit my argument, it's how Anet works; again, I ask you:

> > > > >

> > > > > _If Anet is inline with the idea of balance, why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes?_ We have had 5 years ... we don't have these things. So either Anet doesn't care or can't balance (which Karl refutes in that post) or their ideas of balance must have some additional considerations other than performance. What other options are there?

> > > > >

> > > > > You can continue ignore the fact they care greatly about maintaining the concept for the classes, but that will simply continue frustrate you.

> > > >

> > > > If areanet is not balancing on performance equivalence, then they better start balancing on performance equivalence, given that performance equivalence is one of the primary concerns of a large portion of their playerbase. Oh and the two PvP gamemodes _require_ performance equivalence in order to give a good experience to the participants.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Seems to me they do well enough doing it their way ... if people haven't been getting a good experience, this game wouldn't exist at this point. Truly, there is more to owing the existence of an MMO than class balance; the fact is that it's nice to have, it's not a must have. I've played more balanced MMO's that were much shorter lived.

> > >

> > > Certainly, it's more of a concern in PVP, but we can't ignore the importance of strategy and tactics in those situations as well. In otherwords, playing smart has quite a bit of sway in situations where people are using underperforming classes and playing against real people. Is that fair? Probably not, but it's real.

> >

> > this game is still alive for the only reason there are not good option to it.

>

> Is that a serious comment? There are no other good options for fantasy MMO's other than GW2? As normal, this ranks right up there as some of the most sensational comments you could have come up with. I'm going to put no effort into proving why that statement is demonstrably false.

 

i am only interested in Realm vs Realm which in this game is called WvW.

 

So, MMO speaking there are no good option to it, this is not my only PoV but many many many guilds are still here playing for this only reason, we suffer in silence from years being forced to changes we dislike.

[intox.6347]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

> Is that a serious comment? There are no other good options for fantasy MMO's other than GW2? As normal, this ranks right up there as some of the most sensational comments you could have come up with. I'm going to put no effort into proving why that statement is demonstrably false.

I tried many and always come back... coz other mmos got me bored so fast. WoW was only one who can beat it... but not now in these expac... (not for me)

Tried Tera (easy aoe farm, dungs.. 2 weeks and done) , same with Black desert online, Aion, Archeage, wildstar....

Played Lineage2 from c1 till gracia epi... good game in that times... but it was game gear>skill.

Cant find any other suitable option ...

 

 

[jalmari.3906]

Scourge is just broken in spvp.

 

Sure if team is not braindead and skill levels are somewhere at same level you can deal with one scourge but then you see people stacking 3-4 just for laughs.

 

[ArmageddonAsh.6430]

> @ilmau.9781 said:

> i am only interested in Realm vs Realm which in this game is called WvW.

>

> So, MMO speaking there are no good option to it, this is not my only PoV but many many many guilds are still here playing for this only reason, we suffer in silence from years being forced to changes we dislike.

 

If it wasnt for the combat system (NOT the dreadful balance!) and WW i wouldnt even be playing this game at all and even then. I have seriously reduced my play time because the balance somehow manages to get worse. When you think they have hit rock bottom, they still manage to make it worse :/

[Obtena.7952]

> @intox.6347 said:

> > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > Is that a serious comment? There are no other good options for fantasy MMO's other than GW2? As normal, this ranks right up there as some of the most sensational comments you could have come up with. I'm going to put no effort into proving why that statement is demonstrably false.

> I tried many and always come back... coz other mmos got me bored so fast. WoW was only one who can beat it... but not now in these expac... (not for me)

> Tried Tera (easy aoe farm, dungs.. 2 weeks and done) , same with Black desert online, Aion, Archeage, wildstar....

> Played Lineage2 from c1 till gracia epi... good game in that times... but it was game gear>skill.

> Cant find any other suitable option ...

>

>

 

Hey, that's a personal preference. What doesn't work for you works for someone else. That's not really to my point though ... which is to say there ARE other fantasy MMO's on the market ... so when someone makes up BS by saying the only reason the game is alive because there isn't any alternatives ... that's garbage.

 

> @ilmau.9781 said:

> > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > @ilmau.9781 said:

> > > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > @Crinn.7864 said:

> > > > > >@Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > > > @TheDevice.2751 said:

> > > > > > > > @Obtena.7952 said:

> > > > > > > > Good link because what I got from it: Anet has already been using game data to balance the classes all along. Somehow you read from that Anet chases meta based on that? And interesting but unsound bit of logic. Let's go through it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Karl is saying they have been boosting lower performance builds using ingame data. But here we are, with numerous players claiming they aren't providing the things Anet says they are trying to achieve. So either a) players don't get what Anet's definition of balance is or b) Anet are simply terrible at achieving balance. Either way, that statement simply confirms what we already know ... Anet does use game data to assess their changes. So if you want to make meaningful changes to the game, the best way to do that is to play the game.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't see anything in that statement from Karl that makes me think Anet chase meta around with class changes to deliver balance (let's call it performance equivalence) ... nor do I see anything in game that makes me think they are doing it either. Do I have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Do I have these diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes? I would say no to both those questions. So why would anyone believe their individual idea of balance matches what Anet delivers as their version? That makes no sense.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You're saying there are more types of balance which just suits your own argument. What other idea of balance is there than "performance equivalence"? Not sure anyone has ever heard of these other types of balance. Either you have balance.. or you don't. Not a difficult concept really.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It doesn't suit my argument, it's how Anet works; again, I ask you:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > _If Anet is inline with the idea of balance, why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds within a class? Why do we not have diverse, performance equivalent builds over all classes?_ We have had 5 years ... we don't have these things. So either Anet doesn't care or can't balance (which Karl refutes in that post) or their ideas of balance must have some additional considerations other than performance. What other options are there?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You can continue ignore the fact they care greatly about maintaining the concept for the classes, but that will simply continue frustrate you.

> > > > >

> > > > > If areanet is not balancing on performance equivalence, then they better start balancing on performance equivalence, given that performance equivalence is one of the primary concerns of a large portion of their playerbase. Oh and the two PvP gamemodes _require_ performance equivalence in order to give a good experience to the participants.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Seems to me they do well enough doing it their way ... if people haven't been getting a good experience, this game wouldn't exist at this point. Truly, there is more to owing the existence of an MMO than class balance; the fact is that it's nice to have, it's not a must have. I've played more balanced MMO's that were much shorter lived.

> > > >

> > > > Certainly, it's more of a concern in PVP, but we can't ignore the importance of strategy and tactics in those situations as well. In otherwords, playing smart has quite a bit of sway in situations where people are using underperforming classes and playing against real people. Is that fair? Probably not, but it's real.

> > >

> > > this game is still alive for the only reason there are not good option to it.

> >

> > Is that a serious comment? There are no other good options for fantasy MMO's other than GW2? As normal, this ranks right up there as some of the most sensational comments you could have come up with. I'm going to put no effort into proving why that statement is demonstrably false.

>

> i am only interested in Realm vs Realm which in this game is called WvW.

>

> So, MMO speaking there are no good option to it, this is not my only PoV but many many many guilds are still here playing for this only reason, we suffer in silence from years being forced to changes we dislike.

 

 

That might be true, but it's not what you meant when you said that the only reason this game lives is because there is no other good option to it. Lots of games have open world PVP like that ... so there is actually alot of choice for players into that kind of thing outside of GW2. Clearly, there are other reasons this game persists other than there being no other good options to it. If you're going to make some definitive statements, they should at least be correct or have some context.

[intox.6347]

> @Obtena.7952 said:

 

> Hey, that's a personal preference. What doesn't work for you works for someone else. That's not really to my point though ... which is to say there ARE other fantasy MMO's on the market ... so when someone makes up BS by saying the only reason the game is alive because there isn't any alternatives ... that's garbage.

 

But game is only about personal preference. You choose it because of it, and you still playing it coz of it. Or you are forced to play game which you dont like ? So if ppl like other things, they play other games. You talking about that too much in theory... give me example of "another fantasy mmo" which is in many way same like gw2 ? Its not that easy...